EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Similar documents
Productivity, Jobs, Wellbeing: Making Infrastructure Deliver

Programme. Tunis, March 2016 BUILDIN. "Better regulation for better lives. 9 th annual meeting of the MENA-OECD Working Group IV

Bringing the Charter to life

Tunis, 3-4 June 2010

Expert meeting on Building an open and innovative government for better policies and service delivery. Paris, 8-9 June 2010

Joint Position on Procedural Safeguards

Good Governance for Development (GfD) in Arab Countries Initiative. Working Group on Civil Service and Integrity

Workshop on Protecting Consumers in Peer Platform Markets. Agenda

OECD EXPERT WORKSHOP

ANNUAL MEETING OF SENIOR OFFICIALS FROM CENTRES OF GOVERNMENT POLITICAL ECONOMY OF REFORM: ENSURING STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT

Working Party No. 3 on Co-operation and Enforcement

Senior Officials Meeting on the 3R Initiative - annotated agenda 6-8 March 2006 (Tentative as of March 3rd 2006) 6 March

Board-level employee representation

The Madrid High-Level Consultation on Hunger, Food Security and Nutrition in the Post Development Framework. Background Note and Agenda

New South Wales Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The Council of State. An overview. Protecting freedom and fundamental rights. Defending the interest of the people

LIMITE EN. Brussels, 15 November EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA Council of the EEA EEE 1607/2/11 REV 2

LGST 230 The Canadian Legal System. Detailed Syllabus

Pro Bono Practices and Opportunities in Paraguay 1

Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs WORKING DOCUMENT

Good Governance Programme

AGENDA Closing the regulatory cycle: effective ex post evaluation for improved policy outcomes

Field 050: Social Studies Government and Citizenship Assessment Blueprint

International Consortium for Court Excellence

L A W on Decisional Transparency in Public Administration

THE NEW EQUALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

FOSTERING LOCAL EMPLOYMENT AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH EVALUATION ROUND. Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors SECOND COMPLIANCE REPORT

EUROPEAN YOUTH FORUM WORK PLAN

LEGAL BASIS COMMON RULES

23 24 April 2012, La Canelle Rouge Domaine Les Pailles, Mauritius

OECD LEED TRENTO CENTRE FOR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION BROCHURE

OECD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE GOVERNING BOARD 4TH HIGH-LEVEL MEETING (HLM) CONCEPT NOTE AND DRAFT ANNOTATED AGENDA

Nutrition Forum. World Food Programme & City of Rome. 31 May & 1 June 2010

Sara Fyson Counsellor Public Governance and Territorial Development OECD

Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada

Garfield County Job Description. Assistant County Attorney I, II, III County Attorney s Office

Department of Justice

ASEAN CHARTER AND ASEAN LAWYERS FOR THE RULE OF LAW, ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

TRIAL CHAMBER II. Judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Presiding Judge Judge Olga Herrera Carbuccia Judge Péter Kovács

Training in European Law

Judiciary Administration

Judge Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi President of the International Criminal Court

WORKPLACE RELATIONS REFORM

Development of Public Administration in the Slovak Republic ..from government to governance, from politics to policy..

Local democracy today and tomorrow Learning from global knowledge and practices

SEMINAR ON REGULATORY GOVERNANCE: BUILDING SECTORAL REGULATORS IN KEY ECONOMIC SECTORS

5312 Cap. 243.] Local Governments CHAPTER 243. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ACT. Commencement: 24 March, 1997.

In cooperation with: Consumers Association of Bangladesh (CAB) & Government of Bangladesh

D&I Quarterly » Court of Appeal Rules on Copyright to Contract Terms» Renewed Act on Cooperation within Undertakings

APPLICATION FOR ACCREDITATION AS BARGAINING AGENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 58 OF THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

1 July, OECD Headquarters, Paris

LAW on special legal status of Gagauzia (Gagauz-Yeri)

Aligning Records Management with ICT/ e-government and Freedom of Information in East Africa

Internal and External Dialogue: A Method for Quality Court Management By Marie B. Hagsgård 1

The governance gap: why Brexit could weaken environmental protections

CONF/PLE(2009)CODE1 CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR CIVIL PARTICIPATION IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Peter Chauvin Arbitrator / Mediator

Annual Labour and Social Policy Review: The Corporate Responsibility to Respect: A Human Rights Milestone

Canada 2030: An Agenda for Sustainable Development

DOCUMENT DE PROCÉDURE SUR LA POURSUITE DU PROJET SUR LES JUGEMENTS. établi par le Bureau Permanent * * *

Effective Support of Public Administration Reforms by ESF

EU Law for Non-Lawyers

GLOBAL COALITION FOR GOOD WATER GOVERNANCE

GREATER ESSEX COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

THE NEW MODEL OF LABOUR DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR UKRAINE

COURT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK:

Governance for Development Initiative (GfD) in Arab Countries. Working Group 2 on E-Government and Administrative Simplification AGENDA

CONSTRUCCIÓN DE UN SERVICIO CIVIL ESTABLE Y PROFESIONAL EN EL PERÚ

Qualitative thinking Qualitative education

Helsinki European Council (10-11 December 1999) Presidency Conclusions. Introduction

Halton Regional Police Services Board

Charter of the Financial Stability Board 1

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE KING III COMPLIANCE

Protocol for Developing Multi-Stakeholder Group Terms of Reference and Internal Governance Rules and Procedures

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

8. With the proposed work programme, NAEC aims to:

All terminology used in this terms of reference shall bear the same meaning as in the applicable legislation.

LAO PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC PEACE INDEPENDENCE DEMOCRACY UNITY PROSPERITY

prepared by The Secretariat of the Constitutional Commission of Afghanistan

PRESIDENT'S OFFICE. No April 1996 NO. 27 OF 1996: NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY ACT, 1996.

Quality, trust and social commitment. CaixaBank's Human Rights Policy. May 2017

INITIATIVES AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN IN BUILDING CORRUPTION FREE STATE

Official Journal C 271 A. of the European Union. Information and Notices. Announcements. Volume 60. English edition. 17 August 2017.

Special High-Level Event A New Rural Development Paradigm and the Inclusive and Sustainable New Communities Model Inspired by the Saemaul Undong

LAO PEOPLE S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC PEACE INDEPENDENCE DEMOCRACY UNITY PROSPERITY

ALDA General Assembly and related events

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CHARTER

THE REGIONAL FORUM ON REINVENTING GOVERNMENT IN ASIA: Towards Transparent and Accountable Governance. Jakarta, November 14-16, 2007

Council conclusions on the contribution of culture to local and regional development

Global Forum on Competition

4. EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

ANNOTATED AGENDA. High Level Seminar on Improving Take-up of E-Government Services: Challenges, Solutions and Good Practices

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: ELECTORAL PROCEDURES

Dublin Declaration on Human Resources for Health: Building the Health Workforce of the Future. That further shore is reachable from here

Joint Consultative Council for the Construction Industry. PRESENT (Module 1) A two-day course on

The Regional Organizations Humanitarian Action Network (Rohan) ANNUAL MEETING. 7-9 November 2017 ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA CONCEPT NOTE

The Dutch Experience. Working on Policy Coherence for Development

Country Name Position and Institution represented Supreme People s Court, Vice President Justice Hu Yunteng Supreme People s Court

Transcription:

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE Second OECD Expert Roundtable Agenda OECD HEADQUARTERS, PARIS 1 DECEMBER, 2015 istockphoto/tmcnem

AGENDA Second OECD Expert Roundtable Equal Access to Justice 1 December 2015 Room CC20 OECD Headquarters, Paris Following consultations with member countries, the OECD is organising a series of expert roundtables on Equal Access to Justice, under the auspices of the OECD Public Governance Committee. This second roundtable will build on the results of the first roundtable held on 7 October 2015 by highlighting specific country strategies and innovations used to improve the accessibility and responsiveness of justice services to citizens legal needs, and looking at how to overcome the remaining barriers to access (such as cost, time and complexity). In particular, the second roundtable will aim to focus on three specific strategies employed by countries to improve citizen focus and responsiveness of justice services: impact and modernisation of public legal aid, including representation assistance; harnessing technology in justice service delivery; and deepening specialisation of justice services. The roundtable will feature the participation of Public Governance Committee delegates, country officials responsible for the promotion of access to justice, academia, expert community and civil society. It will aim to facilitate interactive exchange and discussions. All participants will be invited to share their country experiences and participate in the discussions. 2

9:00-9:30 Arrival of participants, welcome coffee 9:30 9:45 Introduction This session will outline the objectives of the 2 nd roundtable and their relevance for the public governance agenda. Mr. Rolf Alter, Director, Public Governance and Territorial Development, OECD 9:45-12:30 Session 1: Business case and modernisation of public legal aid services: Fostering responsiveness to citizens needs? This session will explore the ways to assess impacts of different models of legal aid (or lack of thereof), including on individuals well-being, public investments and broader socio-economic outcomes and inclusive growth. It will also highlight country initiatives to modernise the provision of public legal aid services, including public representation assistance. Coffee will be served at the discretion of the Chair Questions for discussion Impacts of legal aid services What is the business case for public legal aid? How can impacts of different types of legal aid (e.g., full representation, self-help materials) be assessed? What model works under which conditions? What impact does the lack of access to legal aid and hence to justice have on low-income groups? On communities, society and economy? What are the impacts of legal aid on poverty, health, education? Can access to legal aid support access to other services (e.g., health, education, social assistance) and improve outcomes in other policy areas? Do the current approaches to legal aid enable meeting legal and justice needs of citizens, especially in the low income groups? Help citizens resolve clusters of interconnected problems? How is it assessed? What are the biggest barriers for ensuring responsiveness to these needs? Current context and country approaches to legal aid What are the current challenges and opportunities faced by public legal aid systems in the countries (e.g., increasing number of claims for public legal aid, 3

growing number of self-represented litigants, fiscal pressures, quality of public legal representation)? What are the country approaches to enhancing responsiveness of legal aid services to needs of different groups of low-income citizens? What legal aid innovations are being introduced (e.g., types of assistance provided, legal matters covered, who can access (eligibility), at what stage, for which type of justice service (judicial and non-judicial))? Do they recognise multiple paths to justice and different legal needs? What are the country approaches and considerations in providing legal aid for accessing non-judicial mechanisms for meeting legal needs of citizens (e.g., early resolution system services, alternative dispute resolution)? Do governments have an obligation to provide legal aid or representation assistance? If so, is this obligation present only in criminal matters or also in civil matters? And if in civil matters, which kinds? Are there essential legal needs? What are the challenges faced by public legal representation services? How to ensure their quality and responsiveness to citizen and business needs? Consistency in the type and scope or amount of legal assistance provided (quality)? Cost effectiveness? Chair: Mr. Geoff Mulherin, Director, Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales Mr. David Arellano Cuan, Head, Legal Affairs Unit, Ministry of Interior, Mexico Mr. Stéphane Leyenberger, Head, Independence and Efficiency of Justice Division, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Council of Europe Dr. Ab Currie, Senior Research Fellow, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice Mr David McKillop, Vice President, Policy, Research & External Relations, Legal Aid Ontario, Canada Pr. Maurits Barendrecht, Research Director, Hague Institute for Internationalisation of Law (HiiL) 12:30-13:30 Lunch Room CC 20 4

13:30 15:30 Session 2: Harnessing technology in enhancing accessibility of justice services This session will explore the role of technology in enhancing access to information, facilitating provision of legal and justice services and enabling integrated access to services in the justice sector, including in remote communities, to marginalised groups and self-represented litigants. It will also aim to identify the necessary capacities and conditions for using technology for justice services and ways to balance it with more traditional channels of service provision (e.g., face to face) in order to respond to the full variety of legal and justice needs. Questions for discussion Role of technology in enabling access to justice Access to information: In what ways can technology facilitate access to legal information and legal awareness of citizens? What are the successful country examples? How can the governments foster trust in technology as a tool to access to justice services? Service delivery and communication: What are the examples of country initiatives and innovations in using technology to improve the delivery and hence access to justice and legal services (e.g., courts, tribunals, alternative mechanisms)? Communication with justice service providers? In remote communities (e.g., e-filing and e-courts)? For marginalised groups? Selfrepresented litigants (e.g., interactive court forms)? Can technology facilitate the delivery of justice services in all legal domains (or whether some areas are more prone to be addressed via traditional methods, such as criminal cases)? Seamless and integrated access: How can technology facilitate better triage of cases to identify the most suitable legal and justice services? Are there examples of online one-stop shops for dispute resolution services in various areas? Identifying what works What are the pros and cons of online justice services? Are there examples of hybrid service delivery models (combining online and other service delivery channels)? What are the regulatory barriers to innovation and to the use of technology in promoting access to justice? What is required for successful use of technology in providing access to justice (e.g., special regulations, training of IT and legal experts)? 5

Chair: Mr. Peter Van Den Biggelaar, Executive director, Legal Aid Board, The Netherlands Mr. Glenn Rawdon Program Counsel for Technology, Legal Services Corporation, United States Mr. Jin-woong Lee, Director of Judicial Procedure, National Court Administration, Korea Mr. Gianluca Forlani, Head, Discipline and Proceedings, General Direction on Magistrates, Department of Judicial Organisation, Personnel and Services, Ministry of Justice, Italy & Pr. Daniela Piana, Professor of Political Science, University of Bologna; Associate Fellow, Institut des Hautes Etudes sur la Justice Dr. Andrej Ekart, Judge, Enforcement Department, Maribor District Court, Slovenia Ms. Victoria Becerra Osses, Project Coordinator, Studies Unit, Ministry of Justice, Chile 15:30 16:00 Coffee break 16:00-17:50 Session 3: Towards understanding impacts of specialised justice services on access to justice? This discussion will explore country initiatives to establish specialised and differentiated justice services (e.g., courts, tribunals, ADRs, early resolution system services) and their impact on access to justice by citizens and business. It will also discuss their advantages and disadvantages and will aim to identify conditions for their success. Questions for discussion What are the country practices in establishing specialised justice and legal services (e.g., specialised courts, tribunals, ADRs, specialised processes within regular courts)? What is the business case and impact of specialised justice services? What are the country approaches to assess costs and benefits of specialisation? What impacts may specialisation have on access to justice? On inclusive growth? On meeting citizen needs? Under which condition is specialisation effective and may promote accessibility of justice services, and under which may it hinder it? What are the countries considerations in specialisation of justice services? What are the pros and cons of specialisation? Country specific lessons learned? For example, what are the country experiences with the kinds of procedures that 6

may be used in specialised courts? Which mechanisms could enable procedural simplicity in those courts? What are the examples of enabling access to specialised justice services in remote areas? What are the examples of areas and subjects which could benefit from specialised consideration? Are there successful country examples to developing specialised approaches to court adjudication and dispute resolution which respond to citizen / business needs (as opposed to legal issues)? Chair: Mr. Phil Bowen, Director, Centre for Justice Innovation Ms. Maha Jweied, Deputy Director, Office for Access to Justice, Department of Justice, United States Mr. Johannes Gerds, Judge, Staff Counsel Justice, Civil and Labour Procedure, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Germany Ms. Merja Muilu, Head, Legal Aid and Civil Law Enforcement Unit, Ministry of Justice, Finland Ms. Lidia Rabinovich, Head, Child Representation (National), Department of Legal Aid, Ministry of Justice, Israel 17:50-18:00 Concluding remarks 18:00-19:00 Cocktail 7